On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 07:56:39AM +0300, kbohdan at mail.ru wrote:
> Richard Cleis wrote:
> <snip/>
> >>Without pattern catalogue i can see the only way to become good scheme
> >>programmer : traverse tons of web links and articles without any idea
> >>what is good in practice and what is just mathematic experiment.
> >>And that is what i'm currenly doing :)
> >
> >What have you found that is not good in practice? How was it merely a
> >mathematical experiment?
> >
> >RAC
>> Many things.
> For example famous "amb" from SICP. It looks great, but i haven't seen
> something like this is used in practice.
> Other example are monads which look great and promising, but people
> say that in scheme they are "not big fun".
Monads were invented so that you could do imperative stuff (at least
top-level) within a purely functional language, and the theoretical
combinator-calculus coding was to justify that it was, in some
theoretical sense at least, still functional.
Scheme is not purely functional, it has side-affecting
operatins, and has no need for the monads.
-- hendrik